Re: Org. Namespace Example

'Strange' is probably the nicest thing Government Work has ever been called :)

The Public Domain is not undeveloped territory, it is a domain sovereign's 'set aside' for sharing. I think that ignoring this will handicap the Semantic Web and might do worse.

There are some details I wonder about:
* Perhaps org:classification would be better than org:purpose.
* Perhaps The Commons should be a resource rather than a datatype, although beaches do all have water next door, for example.
* Perhaps 'Caretaker' or 'Contact Person' might be better than 'Superintendent', but all are more exact, in a customer service sense, than org:headOf. 



--- On Wed, 6/23/10, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Org. Namespace Example
> To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 5:31 PM
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:52:29 -0700
> (PDT)
> Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > An RDF/XML example for each type is below
> 
> These examples are strange.
> 
> Firstly, bridges and beaches are not typically considered
> organisations.
> 
> Secondly, you appear to be using some of the classes
> defined by the org
> vocabulary as if they were properties.
> 
> Lastly, none of the URIs you're using in rdf:about,
> rdf:resource or
> rdf:datatype make any sense whatsoever.
> 
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 02:04:29 UTC